21 July 2008

Update no.345

Update from the Heartland
No.345
14.7.08 – 20.7.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Our youngest son, Taylor, completed his training at the Kansas State Law Enforcement Center and returns to his duties as a deputy sheriff of Butler County. My sister Melissa, on an extended stay to assist with our ailing mother, added her effervescent nature to the celebration. Our oldest son, Courtney, made back to Kansas as well. Tyson and Melissa were not able to join us. Jacy could not make the ceremony in Hutchinson due to a crisis at work, but we all gathered at our home for a celebratory BBQ dinner, and the following night at the home of Taylor’s girlfriend, Sherri. I have inserted an image of the ceremony attendees – family and friends (minus yours truly); FYI, the three on the left are active police officers.
Taylor’s Law Enforcement Academy Graduation
[Taylor graduation 080718.jpg]
On an incidental note, during the drive to Hutchinson, Kansas, I was amazed by the near dominance of corn in the enroute farm fields. In normal times, the fields would have been freshly harvested wheat. My observation: the price of corn is sufficiently high enough to entice Kansas farmers to switch from traditional wheat to corn; alternative fuel production demands can be felt in unusual areas.

A relevant quote from The Patriot Post:
“A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”
-- James Madison (letter to W.T. Barry, 4 August 1822)

The follow-up news items:
-- In the wake of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 [PL 110-261] becoming law [344], the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Service Employees International Union, and The Nation magazine filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York – Amnesty v. McConnell – claiming the new law violates the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. The dirge continues.
-- On 23.November.2005, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) no. 05-14 – Reduction of Fuel Tank Flammability in Transport Category Airplanes – a consequence of the TWA 800 incident. On Wednesday, the FAA made the new regulation – FAR Part 25.981 – effective, which will require transport category airplanes (Part 121) to reduce the fuel tankage combustible atmosphere, generally by installation of nitrogen-inerting systems on new airplanes. What all this technical mumbo-jumbo means is the FAA is using the TWA 800 tragedy to add requirements on manufacturers and operators. Would nitrogen-inerting has prevented the TWA 800 event? Probably. Will nitrogen-inerting make transport aircraft safer? Yes, without question. Where my beef comes is ‘requiring’ more unjustified burdens that further reduce the operating efficiency of airliners. Aircraft design is an intricate exercise in compromise. The examples used by the NTSB and FAA to rationalize this change are insufficient to warrant such a dramatic new requirement. I am constantly reminded of the old adage, “A ship is safe in the harbor, but that is hardly the purpose of the ship.”
-- It seems even former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is signing onto my Energy Project proposal [335, 339].
“Do It All, Do It Now, Do It For America”
by Newt Gingrich
Newt.org
Posted: 07/15/2008 ET; Updated: 07/15/2008 ET
http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3575/Do-It-All-Do-It-Now-Do-It-For-America.aspx
-- I try to keep up with my reading of both uber-Right and uber-Left journals as well as a myriad of diverse, professional and journeyman, news sources in my continuing struggle to find a reasonable balance and stability. One of the uber-Right variants proclaimed pending electoral vindication and retribution against an “arrogant act of judicial tyranny” in reference to the California Supreme Court’s In re Marriage Cases [CA SC S147999] decision [336]. They refer to California’s Proposition 8 constitutional amendment – “California Marriage Protection Act.” The uber-Right is mobilizing for the occasion, and they say “This is a fight we must win” (emphasis from the original). Well, I wonder, what if they lose? Perhaps that is a path to back into a rationale – cogent or otherwise. Also, judicial activism, or in this instance judicial tyranny, is the epithet spat upon the Judiciary when one side or the other does not agree with the ruling. This coming November, we shall see whether California residents choose to defend the rights of all citizens in good standing or impose the weight of the State on a private choice. To me, the true tyranny rests with the State or any gaggle of citizens who believe they have the duty, nay obligation, to impose their will upon the Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness of ALL citizens – there is the true tyranny. Is the uber-Right that insecure and devoid of confidence in their marriages that they find validation in forcing everyone to live by their rules? I am still waiting for someone to explain to me what the State’s proper interest is in marriage?
-- On Wednesday, the World Court in The Hague, Netherlands – the U.N.’s highest court – ordered the United States of America to stay the execution of José Ernesto Medell¿n, a convicted and sentenced, illegal alien who raped and murdered two teenage girls in Texas, and the Petitioner in the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Medell¿n v. Texas [552 U.S. ___ (2008); no. 06-984] [329]. The Mexican government appealed to the World Court as a consequence of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Medell¿n decision. The Supremes were clear in the 6-3 opinion; they affirmed the sovereignty of Texas and rejected the authority of the President, the UN or other international entities. This could get quite interesting.

Given the previous news item, an Op-Ed article worthy of your time and interest:
“Foreign Courts Take Aim at Our Free Speech”
by [Senators] Arlen Specter and Joe Lieberman
Wall Street Journal
Published: July 14, 2008; Page A15
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121599561708449643.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

On Thursday’s episode of The View, the group jumped on the hot mike comments of Reverend Jesse Jackson . . . something disparaging about Barack Obama’s genitalia and his use of the racial slur word ‘nigger.’ Whoppi Goldberg (AKA Caryn Elaine Johnson) defended the use of the word by a segment of our population with dark skin pigmentation and certain facial features. Elisabeth DelPadre Hasselbeck (née Filarski) argued the use of the word perpetuates the hatred, anger and injustice of that sordid era of this Grand Republic. The word turns my stomach no matter who uses it. As is often the case with controversial topics, we discussed the issue. Jeanne hit upon a magnificent point. If it is OK for Whoppi to use the word ‘nigger,’ is it OK for Barack Obama to use it? After all, he is half of African heritage. What about a person who is one quarter, or one eighth, or one one-hudredth of African descent? Evolution claims we are ALL of African descent, so why would Whoppi object to the Vice President Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney using the word? If Americans with dark skin pigmentation truly seek equality, as opposed to wallowing in the muck of hatred from a bygone era, then I respectfully encourage them to shed those shackles of the past. Let us move on to a brighter tomorrow.

A regular contributor and fellow aviator drew my attention to an interesting essay on the Battle for Afghanistan and the challenges of that arena.
“Afghanistan on the Edge – A World at Risk of Winning the Urban Battle, Losing the Rural War, Abandoning the Regional Solution”
By John Godges
RAND Review
Summer 2007 — Vol. 31, No. 2
http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/summer2007/afghan1.html
The essay’s Figure 2 is probably the best summary of what we have experienced with this administration’s inadequate prosecution of the War on Islamic Fascism. Side note: there are two distinctive omissions – Korea and Vietnam; and, I wonder where those two conflicts lay on the chart? Beyond the resources aspect of both the Battles of Iraq and Afghanistan, the wild card in Iraq has been Iran, and in Afghanistan is Pakistan. Afghanistan would be manageable if it was not for Pakistan. I am afraid the issue of the tribal region will explode before this is all over. And, if the Pakistani military chooses the wrong side, it could get nasty. Then, of course, we have the clerics of the Islamic Republic of Iran. So far, Iran has been focused on Iraq and they have kept their border with Afghanistan calm, but that could change if things turn hot in the tribal area of Pakistan.

Another consistent contributor and intellectual foil in this humble forum offered up the following essay for our critical review.
“Ghosts of Our Past – To win the war on terrorism, we first need to understand its roots”
by Karen Armstrong
Modern Maturity
Published: January February 2002
http://www.wolaver.org/peace/ghosts.htm
Here is my review:
In the main, I think Karen gave us a fair and reasonable portrayal of the genesis of Islamo-fascism in the modern sense. Also, broadly, she implies an impending Islamic Renaissance, as I have written. Unfortunately, in a short essay, it is hard to render such a complex issue. I do have a few quibbles or perhaps refinements to her hypothesis.
One of the great failings of Western civilization has been the root assumption that modernization is good. We destroyed the native cultures in our country by such arrogance. The European colonial powers did their share of the same process. We assumed modernization was goodness by definition. Where we failed miserably stems from that assumption and not recognizing the Bedouins, Australian Aborigines, Amazon natives, Mongols and such were and in some instances still are perfectly happy living simple, isolated or nomadic lives. Regardless, as if to validate our values, we ‘forced’ them to become Westernized, without the education or cultural foundation to support such democratic concepts. Whether Western failure can be corrected is a question with no clear answer, but clearly we bear some culpability in such ‘forced’ transition.
Another key element Karen does not address is the inherent tension between public versus private, or in similar terms, State versus Individual. Further, she does not touch upon the corrosion of local culture by capitalist forces and motivations. Business is not a social welfare entity, and generally cares only about the bottom line rather than the consequences of its actions, e.g., the 1984 Bopal disaster or the Kimberly diamond mines of South Africa.
While Armstrong points a heavy, accusatory finger at the West, she ignores the oppression of Islam manifest in the Persian, Moorish and Ottoman Empires. They were not kind or tolerant rulers . . . just oppressors of a different persuasion.
I did appreciate and note one particular paragraph. “The vast majority of fundamentalists do not take part in acts of violence, of course. But those who do utterly distort the faith that they purport to defend. In their fear and anxiety about the encroachments of the secular world, fundamentalists—be they Jewish, Christian, or Muslim—tend to downplay the compassionate teachings of their scripture and overemphasize the more belligerent passages. In so doing, they often fall into moral nihilism, as is the case of the suicide bomber or hijacker. To kill even one person in the name of God is blasphemy; to massacre thousands of innocent men, women, and children is an obscene perversion of religion itself.”
As I have proposed and continue to advocate, we must assist the Islamic World through their Renaissance, but most importantly, to allow them the freedom to find enlightenment, tolerance and respect for others.
Postscript:
Democracy cannot exist without education. If citizens cannot read, they cannot evaluate multiple, varied sources of information and arrive at an independent opinion, i.e., they cannot intelligently participate in the voting process. If society does not have a free, unfettered Press, and I might add multiple delivery means, then the available information will be constrained to that which the State, or religion, or diluted, hearsay, word-of-mouth offers up. One of many reasons we have radical fundamentalists, they only hear ever more radicalized clerics who pollute their minds and corrode their humanity.

The political scare mongering of the current silly season on both sides has but one purpose . . . get their boy elected. Odd thing is, both major political parties seem to have at least two primary elements in common. They both love big government and spending the public treasury. The only difference in that regard is what they want to spend it on. Democrats tell us Republicans seek perpetual war. Republicans tell us Democrats want communism, or at least deep socialism. We, the People, are left with nothing substantive or rational upon which to judge. The emotional motivations of political dogma fill the voids. From my perspective, I want parts and pieces of each, but in the main, none of the above. I am finding little socially redeeming value in either of the main political parties. They both say what they believe will get them elected.

The last item and big news this week was The New Yorker magazine, 21.July.2008 cover– Michelle and Barack Obama in blatantly derogatory garb and circumstance. The bevy of talking heads went crazy over a satirical comic magazine cover. We defend the Danish political cartoon of Mohammed [218] and condemn the Islamists who bayed for violence, and then we take the inverse in the present example. Hypocrisy? I think so. I think the Obama cartoon was at worst in poor taste, just as the Mohammed cartoon was; but both are worthy of our defense. The sensitivities surrounding the Obama cartoon flourish in the hyper-charged political environment of the presidential election and the raw dichotomy of race relations in the United States. While the cover may have been a bit crass and plays to the bigotry of a significant portion of our population, it did what it was intended to do, brought race, xenophobia, and bigotry to the fore of our political intercourse.

Comments and contributions from Update no.344:
“When I first read thru some comments by ‘others’ on subjects in your blog this week, REALLY doing so for the first time, spoken by ‘some contributor,’ but then much later as I went thru them recognized as being my Own words, I began to think that ‘this guy---whoever he/she is’ really knows about and cares about things going on in the world and here at home. And he/she has straight-forward, no nonsense, no bullshit, no long time waiting out bureaucratic or debating Congressional solutions to a very ‘Present Danger.’ He knows what we first need----a real leader who will do it now, and do it in no uncertain terms. One able to articulate to the people What he is doing, and Why. Then the American people will take it from there.
“He/she must have a Clear definable objective of winning quickly and totally, how to do that, what it will take, and then a Very clear strategy for what comes afterward both for us and the former enemy For an enemy defeated does not have to be and Should not be an enemy afterwards, If that can be accomplished, such as us and the Japanese and Germans after WW2. THAT, however, takes men and women in HIGH places, who have a TRUE VISION of what Can be.
“I am not a Democrat politically, but I like a statement Robert Kennedy made on the very night, I think, that he was assassinated, which quote comes from his Eulogy at his brother John's funeral:
‘My brother need not be idealized, or
enlarged in death beyond what he was
in life, to be remembered simply as a
good decent man, who saw
wrong and tried to right it, saw
suffering and tried to heal it,
saw war and tried to stop it.
"Those of us, who loved him and who
take him to his rest today pray that
what he was to us and what he
wished for others will someday
come to pass for all the world.
"As he said many times, in many parts
of this nation, to those he touched and
who sought to touch him:
'Some men see things as they are
and say why.
I dream things that never were and say why not.’
-- Edward Kennedy
“Me? Should I be running for President? I have maybe not Quite as many authentic credentials as Obama, though I almost think Nearly, plus he's a bit better speaker than I ever was, (and I was pretty damn good), plus I'm the same age as McCain.
“But I'm busy right now, pontificating on all the various things I see going on which I don't believe in, don't like, and cannot for the life of me figure out why they seemingly can't get solved, and also a few of the things I wish I'd been of the right age (year groups maybe) to take part in over the years. Though I did have my times.
“BUT---We do need the Congress, and the people's approval to train, equip, and man (and KEEP that way) the world's most powerful deterrent to terrorism and true assault on people's God given rights around the world. You have to first train what you have and recruit more if needed, then equip them, and then make Sure their numbers are sufficient to do the job. That takes $$$, and the will of the people to spend those $$$ to accomplish the mission of making and keeping intact, the ultimate war machine---for both their own protection, and the protection of true freedom seeking peoples throughout the world. For even One forgotten and struggling people, can become a real threat to ALL peoples in this so highly advanced (overall) world.
“A LEADER can make that happen. No wimpy leader, no negotiator, no sanctions oriented leader, no leader with an eye more to his/her second term, no "Better Red than Dead" leader, (such as some people, including my paternal grandmother were back in the Cold War times). We have to have a leader who is able to see the problems clearly, knows the consequences of non-action and or procrastination, can judge the threats accurately, and then WILL act, Immediately. He/she can't do that alone. And so they need around them ‘The Best and the Brightest.’ Such as the late David Halberstrom used as the title to his very perceptive book about Vietnam and how we got into it and then prosecuted it. Doing so with ‘The Best and the Brightest’ of the time supposedly, who turned out to be----in many cases NOT so. We can't make THAT mistake ever again.
“I believe a world at peace, all peoples, countries, nations, entities all willing to consult about, discuss about, be creative about peaceful and productive decisions----to respect each others differences, beliefs, and values, and know that war between them is never the best way to obtain objectives, then becomes a world much more likely to be prosperous, happy, free, and productive. I believe in strong countries helping emerging countries who want what we (for instance) want and have. But only to get them started. They then Have to make it on their own. The strong can be, when it's appropriate, the protectors of the weak, but they cannot be, in the end, the saviors of the weak. They can provide seed money, and the talent of experts to Help a country get going, but they cannot, as I said, save the country.
“It is not Justice Kennedy's job to make any decision based even a bit on ‘evolving standards of law,’ unless those standards are law in Fact at the time of the crime. His job is to determine whether or not, by EXISTING law, the penalty assigned was legal.
“In MY opinion he and the other 4 justices with him failed! Laws can be changed, by appropriate legislative authority-----NOT by the Supreme Court members!”
My response:
Well said regarding leadership. POTUS does not don a suit of armor, mount his trusty steed, and lead the army of warriors in close combat. POTUS sees the big picture, defines the objective for the armed forces, and uses his rhetorical skills to focus the energy and capacity of the Nation to wage war successfully. His job is to mobilize the Nation for war, not lead the troops in battle.
Good observation on Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Kennedy v. Louisiana [552 U.S. ___ (2008)]. I registered my objections to that ruling by the Supremes [344]. Justice Alito’s dissent was exceptional and masterful.
. . . a follow-up:
“I like Your description of POTUS's job. You're right. But I think it DOES have benefit for all of us if POTUS has seen combat himself. There is a big, though not necessarily crucial difference between those who have and those who have not. And I have no way to tell you what is is. Maybe I remember you telling me you saw a tiny bit back in Vietnam. It doesn't take much---for sure---to know. Like no one back home CAN know, and likely does not want to know. Maybe even actively worked to ESCAPE war, as two of our late POTUS's have done who were eligible and in the age range to serve. And at least one VP also. Not sure if more than one VP.
“I agree with you on Your thoughts on Justice Kennedy in the K[ennedy] vs L[ouisiana] [344] case. I at the moment do not remember what Justice Alito said, if it was in your blog. I don't save blogs after I've had a chance to go over them and either respond or not. I will see if I still have that issue of your stuff. Probably not. I think.”
. . . my follow-up response:
Yes, I agree, combat experience does have value for anyone in a leadership position, especially POTUS or SecDef. However, to me, that is not a requirement or prerequisite. I am far more interested in leadership skills, oratorical ability, how they deal with people, and intangibles like adaptability, affability, and such. I want a POTUS who has strong principles but knows that compromise and negotiation are absolute essentials in a democracy. I want someone who knows how to find solutions in a broader diverse society and political environment.
As a side note, I failed in my election decision assessment in 2004. I weighted national security in wartime too heavily. The cost incurred as a consequence of Dubya has simply been too great.
BTW, the Update is available on-line after you’ve deleted the eMail, including back issues to no.256. URL: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)

14 July 2008

Update no.344

Update from the Heartland
No.344
7.7.08 – 13.7.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Another example of the idiocy of Boumediene {v. Bush [552 U.S. ___ (2008)]} [340] and now Parhat {v. Gates [DC CCA no. 06-1397 (2008)]} [343], and beyond the general examples offered in Antonin the Impaler’s Boumediene dissent, I offer the case of Kuwati Army deserter Abdullah Saleh Ali Al Ajmi . . . armed with an AK-47 assault rifle when he was captured in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan in 2002. He was subsequently incarcerated at Guantánamo. His diligent lawyers gained his release in 2005. On 26.April.2008, Al-Ajmi blew himself up and took seven (7) innocent people with him in Mosul, Iraq. I hope the uber-Left feels really good and justified in letting enemy combatants go free, to kill more people – kinda like the Free Willy syndrome, I suppose. Of course, the uber-Left has nary a whit of regret in hounding the administration to release the killers and close Guantánamo, as they are obviously just innocent tourists, illegally detained by the evil American administration. I feel safer already.
-- The President signed into law the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008 [PL 110-261; HR 6304], AKA the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, [342]. The final Senate vote was 69-28-3. The most controversial provision of the revised law is the immunization of the telecommunications companies that assisted the government in the electronic surveillance process. The law also clarifies elements of the original law – the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 [PL 95-511]. The reform of the internal mechanics of FISA remains beyond public scrutiny, as it should be. The President needs the FISA tools to wage war successfully in the War on Islamic Fascism, yet I have acquired the apprehension of our youngest son. I am not confident in the current administration’s respect for these powerful tools that can be and are abused .
-- Secretaries of State James A. Baker III and Warren Christopher declared the War Powers Act of 1973 [PL 93-148] out-dated, and recommended even closer coordination between the President and Congress by law when committing U.S. armed forces to hostilities. I have mixed views of the notion. One of the President’s many responsibilities in wartime or as war approaches is coalescing national focus on wage war successfully. Because one particular President fails in that task does not translate into more laws constraining future Presidents. But, who am I but a lowly common citizen!
-- On Sunday, 13.July.2008, Taliban fighters executed a coordinated attack on a small, U.S. base in Wanat, Konar Province, Afghanistan, (a province bordering Pakistan’s tribal region) killing nine (9) American soldiers and wounding 15, in a quick, violent engagement. Please review the first item above.

The under secretary of defense for policy from 2001 to 2005, Douglas Jay Feith, offered up a snippet of his view of the reasons for the Battle for Iraq.
“Why We Went to War in Iraq”
by Douglas J. Feith
Wall Street Journal
Published: July 3, 2008; page A11
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121504452359324921.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
While Feith’s views are important to read, they are disappointingly lame from the larger context of the War on Islamic Fascism. We should pay attention to the opinions of citizens who occupy high governmental positions, especially in wartime. However, Feith falls far short of a rational argument. Perhaps he was just presenting a teaser to sell his book. I will not bite.

A series of articles for your discriminating cogitation:
-- “Female U.S. Casualties More Common in Iraq War”
by Kevin Mooney
CNSNews.com
Published: July 02, 2008
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200807/NAT20080702a.html
-- “‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Hits Women Much More”
by Thom Shanker
New York Times
Published: June 23, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/washington/23pentagon.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
-- “Justice for Gays – The Bush administration rules that children of same-sex couples can receive their Social Security benefits”
Editorial
Washington Post
Published: Saturday, July 5, 2008; page A14
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/04/AR2008070402140.html?wpisrc=newsletter

Despite the Press gurgitation of the Supreme Court’s recent capital punishment case, I was not particularly moved to read the case as my Inbox of ‘Reading to do’ remained quite full. Then, I read the following article:
“In Court Ruling on Executions, a Factual Flaw”
by Linda Greenhouse
New York Times
Published: July 2, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/washington/02scotus.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
My curiosity was peaked. Greenhouse claimed the Court had erred in its factual information, supporting the ruling . . . for a capital punishment case, that was a significant accusation. The case in question was: Kennedy v. Louisiana [552 U.S. ___ (2008); no. 07-343] – another close 5-4 decision. What struck me at the outset was an introductory statement by Associate Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy, writing the Court’s opinion. He observed, “Petitioner's crime was one that cannot be recounted in these pages in a way sufficient to capture in full the hurt and horror inflicted on his victim or to convey the revulsion society, and the jury that represents it, sought to express by sentencing petitioner to death.” While I cannot and will not claim an exhaustive search of Supreme Court decisions, to my knowledge, such a statement is extraordinarily rare, if not unprecedented. Just the basic, public facts are sufficient to substantiate the veracity of Justice Kennedy’s statement. Patrick Kennedy, then 43 – Petitioner in this case – was convicted of savagely raping his then 8-year-old step-daughter, and sentenced to death under Louisiana law. Eight years old! Let it sufficient say that Justice Kennedy’s reluctance to recount the factual details is reflective of my use of the adverb ‘savagely.’ The Court decided that a death sentence for child rape short of murder was unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy went on to say, “When the law punishes by death, it risks its own sudden descent into brutality, transgressing the constitutional commitment to decency and restraint.” He also used the term “evolving standards of decency” several times in his rationalization of the Court’s decision. And, the more I read his attempt to justify the ruling, the more I asked myself, where is the bloody decency for that poor little, hapless girl who suffered the brutal rape by a man in a position of trust in her life? Further, I was repeatedly reminded of and would shout at Justice Kennedy, the admonition of Army counsel Joseph N. Welch to Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?” I invoke Welch’s words in the same vein; ‘evolving standards of decency’ . . . my patooty. Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissenting opinion and noted, “The Eighth Amendment [against cruel and unusual punishment] protects the right of an accused. It does not authorize this Court to strike down federal or state criminal laws on the ground that they are not in the best interests of crime victims or the broader society.” In this one, I am with the ‘strict constructionists;’ the Court exceeded its place in our government. If the death penalty for such heinous, non-murder crimes is no longer applicable, then I respectfully suggest a more appropriate penalty . . . that Patrick Kennedy be taken to an appropriate common area in Angola Prison, stripped naked, bent over a barrel, strapped down tight, and then let loose the prison population to have their way with him as he did with his innocent, 8-year-old, step-daughter . . . and even then, his punishment will NOT match his crime. For Kennedy to live the remainder of his life at State expense, even in solitary confinement, is a disproportionate punishment in the other direction – far too liberal and lenient, compared to the violence, cruelty, premeditation and barbarity of the crime. We are NOT talking about an act of passion, but rather a premeditated, purposeful, deliberate act of violence for which there can be no excuse, no mitigation. In many respects, death by lethal injection is far too kind a punishment for such an evil, degenerate man.

Comments and contributions from Update no.343:
“It is now 7:30 a.m., July 8, '08. I have been kinda watching ‘Good Morning America,’ I think. Anyway, the moderator was interviewing T Boone Pickens, a Texas Billionaire, with a lot of interests in the oil industry. The discussion was on ridding ourselves from dependence on foreign oil for energy. Pickens, an Extremely astute business man said, ‘Two things. First, for the short term, Natural gas. We have a LOT of it and we need to start using it in transportation, heating, making electricity, etc, etc, etc.
“‘Then, in the longer term, wind! We have maybe more wind available for use to generate power than any developed country on earth.’ HE said that. Not me. He said we need to be developing wind farms----and he said HE is developing one, I guess in Texas, which will lead the world in wind produced energy.
“He talked about a lot of things concerning energy production and ridding ourselves of foreign dependence, which he said is Easily doable, though not by tomorrow. He said the impetus has to come from the top, (POTUS), in order to get the populace to accept, believe in, and then Demand the needed changes. The politicians will do the rest to create laws, if for no other reason than to ensure their own re-election. Then private enterprise, funded and fueled by public interest, will figure out how to do it and then DO it!
“Then Pickens said something which I took to obliquely refer to our present POTUS, GWB, and yet not TOTALLY in a bad way. I like what he said!!
“He said, ‘A fool with a plan is better than a genius with No plan.’”
My response:
I saw the first of the T. Boone Pickens advertisements this morning. While some of his details are not as ambitious as I am proposing, Pickens has gone quite a bit farther than any of the presidential candidates. I like his wind power proposal as well as the short term utilization of natural gas and clean coal, but all of them need dramatic infrastructure investment . . . to me like seed money – the Federal government investing in our future. Where I think the Federales can have the greatest amplification is in the new energy source technology research like fuel cells or high capacity batteries, but more importantly, technologies not yet identified.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“I totally agree with you, Cap. It will cost a bunch of $$$ over time, to get the infrastructure in place, but we do have to be Building towards energy independence Even as that is happening, because this is a long term thing, though it's doable I think! Once companies believe in the Government doing IT'S part, then they WILL start investing in new sources of energy, as well as research into perhaps even as yet unknown sources. And soon, possibly even before some new thing or current but as yet not really exploited thing is sort of on-line, it will mean Many more jobs, so more taxes coming in to the Government without raising tax rates, etc, etc.
“I always find it very hard to Believe that the Democrats, particularly those most to the left, can be taken in by the idea that Government, and more of it, plus more taxes on the rich is the answer. In NO way can that be, so WHY cannot these usually very bright and educated citizens who are representing us not see that? The rich pay at LEAST their fair share of taxes already! And They are in many cases the very people who can fund the starting of new businesses in the Energy Exploration field, thereby making more jobs available, thus more taxes coming in to the Government without raising taxes, etc.
“I believe in free enterprise as the way to prosperity. Americans of all races, religions, and ethnic groups have always been ingenuous when it comes to exploiting new technologies by starting new businesses, or expanding existing ones into new fields. And when we are in a really truly bad bind/situation, we can muster the effort, people, facilities, and $$$ to quickly start doing and keep doing the most amazing things.
“For instance---look back to WW2, now over 60 years behind us, and take a peek at airplane Bomber production, fighter production, liberty ship production, baby aircraft carrier (such as my Dad was on) production, to name but a few things. It literally took only days to float a new ship from the beginning! And way more than one bomber was rolled out every single day, 24/7, by the several huge companies making them----often with over half their employees women. Same for ship building. The men went to war. The women went to work to support them.
“All we need is a very explicitly obvious national emergency, and then an immediate call to arms by a national leader the people have come to trust and so will follow him/her. In 24 hours we will be damn near up to speed, unless we de-fund and reduce our military's capability as we did following WW2-----and shortly found ourselves almost being pushed out of South Korea in 1950. That should have been a BIG lesson about not maintaining the best equipped, finest trained, and most adequately manned force in the world. Also, we should Never go to war unless we Fully intend to win it, and win decidedly as fast as we can in order to help, in the end, reduce casualties on both sides.
“Government has to provide or help provide national infrastructure, I think, and perhaps see to money, or tax incentives for awhile in order that companies can get their business off the ground and growing, but Government itself is in NO way responsible for picking up every citizen and totally or almost totally caring for them for life. Plus---once companies are up and running, any [subsidies] should be phased out. How to do that I don't know. But I bet it can be done.”
. . . and my follow-up response:
I think we have the national emergency of which you speak. The explosive price of crude oil, for whatever reason, has already caused damage and will continued to corrode our national economy, and as such our tragically imbalanced dependence upon foreign oil sources represents a ‘grave and present danger.’ The sooner we recognize the threat, the sooner we shall rise to the conflict before us.
. . . a last round on this thread:
“You are so very right, Cap. But will we recognize the threat? Hell, it's here NOW!! The leadership of this country is about to change, and in MY opinion, either way it goes now, since the two Parties have selected their candidates, it is not going to be a great next 4 and maybe even 8 next years.
“I am almost 72 right now! Will I live to see the end of this next reign? Don't know, but I think our country will somehow survive whatever comes. We are pretty tough, pretty smart and pretty able, when the push really gets to the shove. I might not be around, but I have absolute confidence in our country to survive anything that threatens it, be it an elected official, an attack, an economic crisis----anything!”
. . . and my closing comment:
We have been in a war for at least 30 years. Even after the trauma of 9/11, we have a substantial part of our citizenry who still do not recognize the war around us. The last five presidents, including the present version, have failed to focus national will on the enemy we face and the War on Islamic Fascism. If we can ignore a war of killing, I doubt the citizenry is capable of seeing the economic threat represented by our dependence on foreign oil, or at least oil from countries not so friendly or dependable to us. Barack Obama has the rhetorical skill to help us understand and focus; I doubt he has the interest in doing so; he is not looking outward, only inward. Sir Winston remains the ultimate political orator. Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan approached Sir Winston’s skill. All the others fall well short of the mark. We need Sir Winston Churchill.

Another contribution more directly from Update no.343:
“God HASN"T given all of mankind ‘Freedom.’ MY opinion. HE has given us ‘Choices.’ If THAT (choices) is freedom, then you are correct. Unfortunately some of the choices made by those in command, control, high elected or appointed position, or whatever, do not follow those God wished for tenants of True freedom. So----Too often, for whatever reasons, the ‘people’ really affected by that are too uneducated, too poor, too weak, too hungry, too un-organized, too much in a purely basic survival type of living, etc, to do anything about it.
“They ARE in that purely ‘Survival’ mode, and ANY real ‘Pied Piper’ who promises reform and better times, is likely to be followed. Though that usually turns out to be Further down the tubes for the people. While the leaders get rich and tighten their grip on their own ‘Goldmine.’
“Unfortunately, again in MY opinion, what happens is that IF those people in that country are no military threat to us, we begin sending MANY MANY $$$$ worth of various kinds of aid to the country, ostensibly to agencies which will properly distribute it, but Much or Most of which actually gets appropriated by the very people we are against, the leadership-----who then sell it off for huge profits, Giving for free and in a highly publicized way, a Token amount, Maybe, to a few of the people, while making themselves rich, and while continuing, Really, to suppress the people.
“Will we never learn? God!!! It seems like 1st Grade stuff to me!
“To be a ‘Democracy,’ as we like to think of ourselves, though I believe technically we are a Republic, does NOT mean we have to be the Savior for every group, country, nation, or group of nations on this planet, even though we are the Only, at present, Big Dog on the block. They need to save themselves.
“Hell-------we need to save OURSELVES, and that is Not going to be with more Government programs Giving us this or that just because some current majority of Congress says it shall be, when what Their REAL aim is to get re-elected, ostensibly so they can Continue to serve their constituency, but knowing that they can get rich very legally, if they do it right. BUT----they have to stay in office to do that. And they have to entertain a few Very quiet voices who only Rarely get heard out loud; then voting on issues in a way which benefits those voices.
“If a country, or any national friend's people are Truly making an effort to fight for their freedom and are threatened by a neighbor or other entity, including internal bad guys, then we should, As that Big Dog on the block, let that bad neighbor or entity know right away and in NO uncertain terms that such actions on their part will Not be tolerated! As of Tomorrow at midnight, their time. If they ignore us even ONCE, and I mean ONCE, we then hit them as hard as we can-----take them Out----notice I did not say hit them as hard as we hope they may then get the idea about----NO. Hit them as hard as we have the capability to do accurately! Take them out! No increased sanctions we have to debate about in Congress. No. Bamn! Gone.
“Of course we have to have an Intel community trained and staffed and funded well enough to do that. With authorization to do what is necessary to gain intelligence. We can have such an Intel community. IF we as a people and our leadership really believe it necessary. I believe it is! Now!
“We also have to have a well trained, well equipped with the latest ‘stuff,’ and well funded military of more than barely sufficient size to counter a threat here and there. It needs to be able to Overwhelmingly take on ANY, and if need be ALL at one time, threats.
“It can do this Very well if our Government allows it to have the resources it needs in people, training, weapons, and support material. Again----go back to our response to Japan and then to Germany after Pearl Harbor. NO one but us on this planet could do it then, and none can do it now. NO one but US!
“But as always, the leadership FIRST has to recognize that the threat IS a dire threat. Then it Has to get the people behind the effort needed to counter that threat in as quick and as decisive way as possible. No holds barred and none given. Right now!
“Not 6 months down the pike after all the hearings in Congress have stalled due to politics. NOW! Otherwise it will not work. And That could lead to our ultimate downfall.
“To do that takes a True LEADER of immense knowledge, perception, worldly experience, character, integrity, unselfishness, willingness to buck the tide, and actually, I personally believe, experience in war would be a big plus. For if one has never been to war, one Cannot know what it is all about and what it is like. Cannot! Cannot! My opinion obviously---but based on Some knowledge of my own.
“What was it Bush Jr's initial strike on Iraq was called in 2003? ‘Shock and Awe?’ ALL folks understand THAT Very well!! The Iraqis found out very quickly. That is how to take on any known threat when threatened.
“Sorry about them! They Should have listened! We meant it. I think we'd have to do that only once or twice before the bad guys kinda get the hint. Though some, maybe like Iran and North Korea, after ‘Shock and Awe,’ didn't quite get the message because of our lack of a plan to proceed after we'd kicked Saddam's ass, I expect there would be collateral damage in any attack. But-----was there no collateral damage in say, for instance, WW2 or any Other war? Who complained about THAT?
“Yes, any other war Could mean Korea or Vietnam, where we didn't win, and so people DID complain and get frustrated and finally fought against further involvement. Who the Hell wants to fight a war you do not even intend to win as soon as possible and as decisively as possible? No one!
“We should ALWAYS do, as a country, what has to be done, and we need Leaders who recognize that and are willing and able to express that need to all the people in a way they will get behind and then DO IT! Not in a week or month or year, after debating it, or negotiating, or sanctioning. DO IT!
“That should perhaps at least discourage Other predators from interfering with the protected country, nation, entity's fight to save itself. Or give them pause for thought.
“Note to the protected country-----Save itself! Not have US save it all FOR them. Yes we will hold off would be enemies, giving our friend time, but we cannot be their savior in the end. They have to do that themselves.
“MASSIVE widespread and basically Indiscriminative Aid to Any country, people, ethnic group, (to include so called African Americans ---I believe we are Americans period or are not---American Indians, and Eskimos, etc), religious group, any entity, etc, whether out in the world or here at home, ONLY, in MY mind anyway, first promotes acceptance of that aid, then dependence on that aid, then a belief that the aid is deserved, with no payback, due to the bad and not their fault situations----no matter HOW many years ago, and Finally a belief that the aid is their RIGHT. Or the Reparations are their right.
“In the end there is NO sense of any responsibility for their OWN survival; their OWN ability to get ahead and succeed! They stop, if they ever even started, pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps. No need to. They are taken care of with no effort on their part. It's a warm and fuzzy, and comfortable way to live.
“Now Very specifically and well thought out ‘TARGETED’ aid to Truly needy people Anywhere, who are really trying, Themselves, to recover from disaster, or rise up against oppression, can be beneficial for both us and them if done knowledgeably, and not just quickly and helter-skelter in order to show the world how great and beneficent we are.
“Unfortunately, the agencies within the Government who most likely would be tasked as responsible for administering any such program probably have neither the real experts, funds, or true desire to work hard enough, (well beyond the 8 to 5 normal workday on Civil Service pay), to get anything done right the first time, or even the second. And/or, multiple agencies would be involved, ALL fighting for jurisdiction, or trying to work out the administrative problems with taking on such a task.
“Meanwhile the affected people go further down the tubes in a very REAL way while the Washington bureaucrats who are debating/arguing/discussing in committee meetings the ‘problem’-------go home every night to their 3-4 bedroom, 2-3 bath, 3 car garage, house on the beltway, eat a good meal, watch TV, play briefly with their kids, and later sleep between clean sheets in a centrally heated/air-conditioned home. And feel good about the fact that they are helping some unfortunates out there Somewhere in the world-----though they forget just where. They missed that part of the last committee meeting. It's sad, but too often true.
“I welcome Every July 4th! It seems to me to re-affirm in a way, each passing year, what our country stands for. I hope we have the wisdom to elect officials who will uphold all that. I hope any President elected sends Truly qualified judges to our Supreme Court who believe in the constitution and interpret it in a way which promotes Our (the people's) rights and not the rights of acknowledged and known bad guys. And I hope our people continue to stand up for and always defend the principles so well thought out by our forefathers. God bless America----‘The land of the free and the home of the brave.’
“As far as Roe vs Wade decisions by the Supreme Court?
“I have extremely mixed feelings about that. Though I do believe basically that a woman has the right to choose-----at least up to some point, everything else being equal.
“For argument's sake, let's say that That is the beginning of the 3rd trimester, when the fetus is MUCH more than just an unrecognizable "thing" inside her. It's by then an identifiable child! Unborn yet, but an identifiable child in the making.
“So----unless, in some extreme circumstance, and I do not pretend to have ANY Clue just what That would be, it is necessary to abort the woman to save Her life, I think it Could be justifiable. BUT----I'd have to leave it to the judgment of the woman's doctors and her wishes and judgment. I'd hope God directs their meditations and decisions! And I would not want to be in their shoes.
“I DO think, however, that IF an abortion is decided on and agreed upon by both appropriate medical personnel AND the woman, if she is capable of participating in such decision, (and the medical staff alone if she is not), then neither the woman nor any medical staff involved should be held liable! By Law! It is, in my opinion, a decision for the woman and her doctors to make---Not the Supreme Court.
“I know that what I've said about it still has likely a Ton of ‘holes’ in it, exploitable by the ambulance chaser lawyers, wrongful death lawyers, and probably others, all out to make Themselves rich. The majority of THOSE kinds of lawyers, in MY opinion, do not really give a damn about either the woman OR the fetus. They see $$$$ signs.
“Obviously there are always a few very specific exceptions. But they should be far apart, and if frivolous, thrown out immediately by Any Judge who has any sense of responsibility for His position in the judicial system.
“There was a time, even during My life, when folks pretty much trusted the decisions made by competent and caring Professionals and Officials, and only challenged decisions when they were Obviously way out of whack. No more. Those days are gone! If there is a way to make a buck from someone's action or decision, no matter How ridiculous it might be, here are a Raft of greedy lawyers ready to take it on. How much money, eventually coming out of the ‘People's’ pockets, does it take to defend against such lawsuits? I bet a LOT!!!
“Zimbabwe? Stay the hell out of there! Period! Enough said!
“I too congratulate LtGen Dunwoody's recommendation for promotion to General, and hope confirmation comes soon. It's about time. Another step in the right direction! And this opinion is coming from a hard-core retired senior Marine Officer who had a goodly amount of experience with women Officers and Enlisted in his several commands, plus before he commanded.
“I'd like to know more about the details of the Columbian hostage rescue operation. Though perhaps Those will need to be under wraps for an indefinite time due to true security reasons. I'd hate to think some Future rescue mission of hostages or POWs might be jeopardized because the details of a previous mission became known, so thus prepared for by the bad guy detainers.
“The problem of how, within the constraints of our Constitution, to effectively deal with known, perceived, or possible terrorist threats, as determined by our intelligence,, police, FBI, and like agencies, is a juggling act. I think sometimes, especially when a terrorist act, or an act determined Very quickly, without a lot of this and that procrastinations and what ifs, Does occur despite our best efforts, then all bets are off! The President should have the authority to just say, ‘Go get em!’ Dead or alive! ‘Go get em!’ ‘Whatever that takes!’ HE/SHE IS our elected leader after all. I for one Expect and demand HIM/HER to Lead!! They took an oath to ‘protect and defend.’ I would follow to Hell a leader who took that oath seriously, and not in a ‘Well maybe we can negotiate with, or put sanctions on, or cut our foreign aid to’ type President. Bullshit!! Go get em!!!
“I believe that truly ‘secret’ moves against an enemy or suspected enemy, be that man, beast, group, country, or aliens from far off in the universe, should remain secret, and ANY leaks be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Then, if the fullest extent of the law is not much more than a slap on the wrist with full government retirement benefits still intact, etc, etc, (that small fact unknown to Most folks), then change the F___ing law! Make it VERY dangerous to ‘leak’ ANY info of ANY kind, to the media/press/whoever, until the President himself/herself authorizes it publicly.”
My reply:
What I meant in my God & Freedom remarks was that people inherently desire peace and freedom to live their lives as they choose, not as someone else (or group of someones) dictates how they should live. Yet, by their birth circumstances, affiliation choices or surrounding societal structure (e.g., government), they suffer oppression and compromise of their inherent desire, as the Founders so eloquently stated, “[M]ankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms [of government] to which they are accustomed.”
Religion has a long history of advocating ignorance and teaching blind obedience. The Renaissance – some might call it the Age of Reasoning and Thought – reformed the Christian religion. The Islamic religion has not reached their Renaissance, yet. Too many Islamic clerics demand blind obedience, which leaves the believers easily susceptible to the Sirens call of martyrdom. The present War on Islamic Fascism may well provide the necessary stimulus for Islamic enlightenment. We shall see.
Yes, precisely, Freedom is not free. And, indeed, we are not the World’s policeman. However, in this instance, the oppression of Muslims has led to the radicalization of the Islamo-fascists, who in turn chose to kill innocent Americans to further their political objectives. When their violence is exported to our shores and our citizenry, their violence becomes our problem. Four successive administrations did everything they could to deny the war and avoid the fight. The fifth president said enough, and chose to stand and fight the enemy around us. I am not advocating that we use American military might to depose every two-bit dictator or free all oppressed people; but, when their violence spills into our lap, I say we use all available force to squash the threat as quickly and efficiently as possible. Thus, we are in agreement on Zimbabwe.
We have contracted a societal disease, perhaps even a fatal cancer, of looking to the Federal government to solve our problems. We created this bloated and obese Federal government that has become the very evil the Founders sought so mightily to avoid. We, the People, must stop the excesses and contract the government to a more proper place in our society. We have wandered too far off course from the path the Founders illuminated for us, and the path is so distant we may not find our way back.
We are also a long way from the Intelligence Community I think we deserve, need, and should have. And, the more we constrain the Intelligence Community with bureaucracy, procedures, gates, rules and red-tape, the less likely we are to obtain a proper Intelligence Community.
As you noted, and I have stated before, I believe we have a grossly undersized military to wage war successfully on our Islamo-fascist enemies. We need the combat arms segment of our military in the 3-5 times the size they are today. If we cannot get there with volunteers, then I am for the involuntary draft. We are at war, whether we choose to believe it or not. I imagine the citizens and Senate of Rome did not believe they were at war in the days of Emperor Valens.
The problem with appointing judges is they are all truly qualified, and they believe in the Constitution and the law, but they interpret the law from their perspective, which all too often means reinforcing Federalism and diminishing the Liberty our forefathers risked so much for and sacrificed beyond comprehension. I would like to see judges who truly understand and appreciate the boundary between public and private, and the notion that the government exists to serve We, the People, not a small fraction but all the People, and not the other way around.
Re: Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] [U-319]. Likewise, I have strongly mixed and diverse views of the abortion issue. First and foremost, I see abortion as a barbaric procedure akin to bleeding, amputation and leeching to solve common medical situations. I look forward to the day when abortion is relegated to the antiquity of medical history. On the other hand, the privacy, sanctity and autonomy of our bodies and private property should be inviolate, short of injury to others. Abortion presents a unique intersection of private and public interests. Some claim life begins at conception, while others insist upon birth. I see the wisdom in Justice Blackmun’s extra-uterine viability as an interim means of resolution of the conflict between the diametrically opposed forces. I could support a governmental initiative to eliminate abortion, IF we do so by recognizing that every child deserves to be loved, wanted and nurtured, that sex is a normal, healthy, pleasurable human activity, and that we have equally respectful means to resolve situations that enter the intersection. I think we agree . . . the State does not belong in the intimate biology and physiology of a citizen.
We are in absolute agreement on the leaking of State secrets, especially during wartime. There will be time in peace to investigate, to refine, and to correct mistakes. Doing so in wartime is suicidal.

Another contribution:
“[H]ere you said:
“We have welcomed foreigners into our midst who are intent upon the destruction or at least immobilization of the United States.”
“Although I have plucked this a little out of context for my purposes- I feel it represents a kind of narrow view that implies a carelessness, or unawareness that isn't real. You suggest that we open our arms to ravagers fecklessly, as if we are too innocent, naive or silly to know better. I think you may have been implying the 9/11 hijackers, as a specific example of this since they all came in legally-you could say we welcomed them into our midst, and they learned the ropes etc. The sense is that we were blindsided by our hospitality and innocence. Actually, we knew who they were, many were under surveillance, and we have shut down any investigations (Able Danger, specifically), gagged whistleblowers, (Sybil Edmunds), and fired and reprimanded gov't lawyers who tried to protect the Constitution (Jessalyn Radack), in order to hide just how much we did know about welcoming these foreigners into our midst. If we could investigate properly, above board, and thoroughly, at least approximating a kind of Church Committee hearing, not that it was perfect by any means, then we might realize that the rules in place did work and that we just were witnessing operations that were results of , say, approved policy. Now did they get out of hand, or did they work pretty much according to plan?- Can we handle the truth? If you acknowledged this lack of substance around your general comment then maybe you could join me in calling for a real investigation of Able Danger. You might consider it even disregarding my comments.”
My response:
Extending a plural reference to a general population is not appropriate. Further, I was not constraining my observations to the 9/11 attackers, but rather those attackers not yet activated.
Yes, we knew the identities of most of the 9/11 attackers, and at least one FBI agent suspected something bad was afoot prior to the attack. However, our then law-enforcement configured domestic intelligence processes were not oriented toward wartime intelligence but rather legal prosecution – two fundamentally different activities.
To the best of my knowledge, “Able Danger” was a Defense Department, data-mining operation focused on national security rather than criminal prosecution, which is the reason the program was dismantled. Able Danger represents the failure of our governmental system to orient for the war we have been in rather than some peacetime stable state. I would not advocate for a public investigation during wartime of any intelligence means or methods including Able Danger; to me, doing so would be like investigating ULTRA (Enigma) and MAGIC (Purple) in 1942.
. . . round two:
“Thanks for your comments. I totally disagree with you on investigating every aspect of the tragedy of 9/11, including every nook and corner of Able Danger, as well as open testimony of Sybil Edmunds, and public restitution for Jessalyn Radack, etc. I also respect your attitude that we are in a war, but absolutely disagree because this invasion of a sovereign nation was illegal and wrong- and we are seeing the results of this catastrophe on so many levels- But, I know this is an argument not accepted by many, especially those who put some faith in this administration. From a military standpoint control is tantamount and in the history of police states we have seen this demonstrated over and over throughout history, have we not? Are we a police state? I am not a conspiracy buff nor un-American, nor anti Republican, nor a flaming liberal. We may be one, and the attitude that we should not investigate in order to protect secrets encourages that perception. I cannot think of any time when truth was not the best option. Can you? In the course of human events that have resulted in wars, we have established rules of conduct. Name rank and serial number- not lies nor deception. Outside that real war-time circumstance, civilian jurisdiction has its rules as well- Due Process- open investigations, tell the truth or nothing but the truth, or face consequences. I can't think of anything the American people should not know about 9/11. Granted it appears that much of the hidden information would tarnish if not indict many people in charge today. At least that is my opinion. I could send you links to the other points of view- but I sense either you are already aware, or don't want to take the time to look at it from a non-militaristic vantage.”
. . . my response to round two:
The only difference between us on this issue is wartime versus peacetime. The New York Times, Sy Hersh and other well-intentioned myopic do-good’ers have done far more damage to our wartime national security than they have ever done to help preserve our Liberty. To conduct such a public investigation in wartime is comparable telling our enemy exactly what we know and how we know it – the positives and negatives. In wartime, such disclosure to our enemies is unacceptable and unconscionable to me. Sir Winston Churchill succinctly stated, "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." There are real, bona-fide, time-tested reasons behind his wisdom. We are not in some innocuous match on the futball pitch; we are at war! I am quite comfortable waiting until our enemy is vanquished to eviscerate the transgressors.
. . . round three:
“Gotta respectfully disagree with you here- especially with your final, open-ended war-forever sentence. And especially since you have identified the enemy in previous posts as essentially the world of Islam. This seems illogical and disastrous, to me. We are not in a declared war, like WW2 where the evidence of what happened on 9/11 would have any national security effect on us- except to embarrass or maybe indict some people now in power.”
. . . and my response to round three:
Islamic Fascism is most definitely NOT all of Islam. In fact, I truly believe the Islamo-fascists and jihadistanis within the religion of Islam are a mere fraction of the whole . . . a smaller percentage than there were Nazis in Germany in 1939. We are NOT at war with Islam. I have enormous respect and I must confess admiration for the religion of Islam, as I do Christianity, Judaism and the other major religions. We have been at war with Islamo-fascists since at least 1979, with or without the proper, formal, Article I, Section 8, congressional action. I have stated repeatedly that President Bush made a grave, if not fatal, mistake asking for the Authorization rather than a Declaration, but the Authorization is adequate under Article I, Section 8.
It would appear the common point of our disagreement directly and indirectly related to the present War on Islamic Fascism rests squarely upon the question of, are we at war? I believe we are and have been for 30 years. Apparently, you believe the contrary, which is your choice entirely. My prior remarks stand.

Another contribution:
“How these got on the books is anybody’s idea….
“1. Oral sex is illegal in 18 states, including Arizona.
“2. In Virginia, it is illegal to have sex with the lights on.
“3. It is illegal for husbands in Willowdale, Oregon, to talk dirty during intercourse.
“4. Sexual intercourse between unmarried couples is illegal in Georgia.
“5. Engaging in any sexual position other than missionary is illegal in Washington, DC.
“6. In Connorsville, Wisconsin, it is illegal for a man to shoot off a gun when his female partner is having an orgasm.
“7. In Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, it is illegal to have sex with a truck driver inside a toll booth.
“8. Having sexual relations with a porcupine is illegal in Florida.
“9. It is illegal in Utah to marry your first cousin before the age of 65.
“10. Sex with animals is perfectly legal for men in Washington state, as long as the animal weighs less than 40 pounds.”
My reply:
Some of these may be a liberal interpretation of some of the laws, but I suspect not too far off the mark. These examples are inappropriate “moral projection” into the private domain at its worst. One of these days, I hope we can help enlightenment return to the freedom envisioned by our Founders and confine government to the public domain, and only to those issues where a proper State interest exists.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)

07 July 2008

Update no.343

Update from the Heartland
No.343
30.6.08 – 6.7.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
When in the course of human events . . .
We hold these truths to be self-evident . . .
The very Liberty we enjoy today sprouted from those glorious words, 232 years ago, and those that followed. May God bless the freedom He has given all of mankind. Someday, all of mankind shall enjoy their God-given rights and live in peace as God intended.

The follow-up news items:
-- A few more thoughts on the Heller decision [342]:
1. We came within one vote of losing a constitutional protection of our individual rights.
2. This is why a president’s supreme court nominations are so bloody important.
3.. An additional perspective below.
-- The African Union Summit welcomed Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe as a bona fide state leader. [330, 336, 342] They failed in their opportunity to do the correct thing for the Zimbabwean people. I am truly sorry to say, if Zimbabwe’s neighbors cannot see reality, then I shall suggest they are not worth a single drop of American blood or a single cent of treasure. We shall continue our utterances of outrage and protest because that is what we do, but Zimbabweans must find the will to change their lot in life. As long as the killing is confined to that tragically impoverished country, the World just does not care. Where is our humanity?
-- President Bush nominated Lieutenant General Ann E. Dunwoody, USA, for promotion to the rank of General (4 stars), the first woman in U.S. history to be so appointed, and to be posted as Commanding General, Army Materiel Command. Congratulations, General Dunwoody. Senate confirmation awaits.
-- While the details of the Columbian hostage rescue mission are a little odd to me, I shall give them the benefit of the doubt and say congratulations to the government of Columbia for the ingenious rescue of 3 American and 12 Columbian captives held for many years by Marxist FARC terrorists. Well done!

I recognized the following article in an earlier Update [210] and protested the violation of national security in wartime.
“Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts”
by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau
New York Times
Published: December 16, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html
As a consequence of the Times exposé, the President acknowledged the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) in a radio broadcast the following day. A number of lawsuits followed, including one filed by the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc., an Oregon Nonprofit Corporation, and Plaintiffs in the case of Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v Bush. In February 2004, Plaintiff’s alleged that as a consequence of the Government’s TSP, the Federal Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) froze Al-Haramain’s assets while investigating whether Al-Haramain was engaged in terrorist activities. During the discovery process, the Government – namely OFAC – inadvertently disclosed to the Plaintiffs a clearly marked, TOP SECRET document reportedly identifying the products of warrantless surveillance of Al-Haramain. The meanderings of this case through the Judiciary have already exceeded the capacity of this humble forum as it began with an order by District Judge Garr M. King, United States District Court, District of Oregon, which was appealed to the 9th Circuit, which in turn combined with other judicial actions and remanded back to the lower court. The latest event was reported in:
“Judge Rejects Bush’s View on Wiretaps”
by Eric Lichtblau
New York Times
Published: July 3, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/washington/03fisa.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
The principal issue in the now titled In Re: National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation [Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW (2008)] has become a contest over the contents of the Government’s classified document, now referred to as the “Sealed Document.” United States District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, Northern District of California, dismissed the case with leave to amend, which means the Plaintiffs did not provide an adequate argument to overcome the state secrets privilege of the Executive. I suspect this case is far from over. The trip down memory lane displayed in the court documents made public to date accentuates a number of societal issues. One of many issues in this and the other associated cases rests in the reality that some American citizens as well as both authorized resident and illegal aliens are enemy operatives, direct supporters of enemy agents, or sympathizers who offer passive acquiescence to enemy activities. We have welcomed foreigners into our midst who are intent upon the destruction or at least immobilization of the United States. These individuals and groups have learned our systems and processes, to use them carefully for cover of their dastardly work. The Government recognized the pervasiveness of the intermingled threat and took extraordinary measures under their liberal interpretation of the legislated counter-terrorism tools and Article II of the Constitution. The results to date tend to validate the Government’s actions. However, as we can see in this litigation, the equally extraordinary potential for abuse by the Federal Government cannot be ignored. The courts have illuminated the past abuses of the Executive that led to the Church Committee and the resultant Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA): [PL 95-511]. The excesses of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and President Richard M. Nixon diminished the authority and narrowed the latitude of action available to the Executive. President George W. Bush stretched those constraints far beyond commonly accepted limits. While I have given the Federal Executive exceptional wartime latitude, the signs of abuse are mounting, and we are likely facing renewed efforts to further constrain the President, which will not be a positive action for our ability to wage war successfully. This particular case gives us a sad view of the current Executive that is trying mightily to do what must be done in the War on Islamic Fascism, but is hampered by the arrogance of power and the ineptitude of its minions. I believe the Government needs the power of the TSP et al, but security at the price of our freedom is no security whatsoever. The vigil continues.

A long-time friend and contributor asked:
“Have you seen anything on the recently approved Presidential Finding that authorizes $400M for covert operations in Iran with authority to use deadly force in defense? Ostensibly the op is under Cheney and will try to destabilize the current Iranian government. I heard about it on NPR today [Monday, 30.June], so I don't have any secret source.”
My answer:
The first public acknowledgment of the covert initiative in Iran was a news flash and subsequent interviews with Seymour Hersh about his article:
“Preparing the Battlefield – The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran”
by Seymour M. Hersh
The New Yorker magazine
Published: July 7, 2008
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh
A Presidential Finding as well as the conduct of such activity would certainly not be a surprise to me given the history of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the last 30 years and the IRI’s continuing defiance of international nuclear containment efforts. In fact, I am either disappointed that such a Finding did not exist for 30 years, or ecstatic that it took Hersh 30 years to find a traitor willing to compromise the national security of this Grand Republic, or immensely angry that the administration intentionally leaked even the existence of such a highly classified document.
I suspect now that Hersh has spilled the beans, greater detail will make its way into the public domain. But, based on what I have seen so far, I would say this whole episode appears quite normal and appropriate.
On a related plane, there will be those who will condemn the administration for intentionally leaking classified material for political gain, along with an equally vociferous segment who will condemn the traitor(s) who disclosed classified material to a journalist. Regardless, the exposure of ongoing clandestine operations is wrong for any reason and every reason, as long as there is one pair of sandals or boots on the ground in Iran.
As always, “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

An article for your critical review and cogitation:
“Gay Marriage Is Good for America”
by Jonathan Rauch
Wall Street Journal
Published: June 21, 2008; Page A9
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121400362307993399.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

I mentioned the first of the post-Boumediene {v. Bush [552 U.S. ___ (2008)]} [340] cases in last week’s Update [342] – Parhat v. Gates [DC CCA no. 06-1397 (2008)]. The court issued the redacted ruling this week, reversing the finding of the military’s Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) and declaring that Chinese ethnic-Uighur Huzaifa Parhat was not a battlefield combatant. The court gave the government another chance to present a proper evidentiary case or set him free. Circuit Judge Merrick B. Garland wrote the court’s opinion, and acknowledged that the CSRT noted, “no source document evidence was introduced to indicate . . . that the Detainee had actually joined ETIM (East Turkistan Islamic Movement, a Uighur independence group), or that he himself had personally committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition partners.” Garland went on to observe that “statements in classified documents that do not state (or, in most instances, even describe) the sources or rationales for [the Government’s substantiation] statements. Parhat denied knowing anything about an al Qaida or Taliban association with Uighur camps.” [Of course he would, wouldn’t he; how many bad guys confess their culpability?] The judge concluded and ordered, “We therefore direct the government to release or to transfer the petitioner (Parhat), or to expeditiously hold a new CSRT consistent with this opinion. This disposition is without prejudice to Parhat’s right to seek release immediately through a writ of habeas corpus in the district court, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Boumediene. We also deny, without prejudice, the government’s motion to designate certain unclassified material in the CSRT record as ‘protected information,’ subject to the filing of a renewed motion accompanied by pleadings sufficient to explain why such designations are warranted in this case.” I do not know and I doubt the Government will appeal to the Supremes given the recent Boumediene decision. Parhat may have been just another innocent tourist in a war zone, like so many of the others, but I remain unsympathetic. We have begun the journey down the path of making the combat military and field intelligence operatives into police officers, where every battlefield captive will have to be read their Miranda rights and provided a lawyer to represent them in court. I repeat my opinion . . . this is a foolish, self-destructive course . . . and, I would love to be proven wrong in this instance. Regrettably, I fear I shall not be proven wrong. War may seem like a barbaric human frailty, outmoded by our modern sensitivities; however, as long as there are bad men who seek to oppress others for their aggrandizement, we shall have war, as mankind has suffered since the creation or evolution, as your personal beliefs dictate. When we try to pretend war is not war, then we have probably begun the process of disintegration to which previous empires have succumbed.

Another perspective on this issue . . .
“The Enemy Detainee Mess”
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Wall Street Journal
Published: July 3, 2008; Page A10
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121504362668624767.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Additional comment and opinion are offered below.

Now, if that is not enough, let us put a little icing on this bitter and odiferous cake. The British Judiciary is apparently just as much troubled, grappling with the specter of international Islamo-fascism as we colonialists.
“Why the Brits Are Setting Terrorists Free”
by Melanie Phillips
Wall Street Journal
Published: July 1, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121486821701117583.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
I trust no one will be surprised when the barbarians show up at our homes to tell us how life is going to be under their generous and benevolent dicta. Hey, at least we can rest assured that we tried to be nice guys with these bastards who are trying to kill us.

For those who still may doubt the wisdom of the Heller decision [342], I offer this simple exercise. What is the broad, general purpose of each amendment in the Bill of Rights? My answers:
1st – religion, speech, press, assembly – protect citizen from government
2nd – keep & bear arms – ??
3rd – property – protect citizen from government
4th – unreasonable search & seizure – protect citizen from government
5th – self-incrimination – protect citizen from government
6th – speedy, public trial – protect citizen from government
7th – trial by jury – protect citizen from government
8th – no cruel and unusual punishment – protect citizen from government
9th – other rights retained by the People – protect citizen from government
10th – rights reserved to the states or the People – protect citizen from government
Now, when we look at the Bill of Rights in this manner, what do you think the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is?

Comments and contributions from Update no.342:
“A good article on interrogations.”
“Who You Gonna Believe -- Jack Bauer or Joe Navarro?”
By Jeff Stein
WeBlog: SpyTalk – Intelligence for Thinking People
June 26, 2008 7:00 AM
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?tag=counterterrorism&blog_id=25&IncludeBlogs=25
My response:
In this debate, I have two (2) fundamental concerns / issues.
1.) The mixture of war and crime. The two human activities are categorically, elementally, and emphatically separate, different, distinct and un-mix-able. War is between Nations. Crime is between people. Perhaps, we made a very basic, fatal error in coining the term ‘war crimes’ in the aftermath of the WW2, as that has cajoled novice citizens into the grossly false notion that war is just a different, broader form of crime, and thus subject to criminal jurisprudence. The current folderol in which we are immersed accentuates the fallacy of such a ludicrous endeavor. To think that we can ‘try’ hundreds of thousands, or millions, of enemy combatants in a court of law is absurdity on an unprecedented and unimaginable scale. Usama bin Ladin may well be the divine genius he seems . . . in finding our greatest societal weakness and exploiting that weakness on an equally unprecedented scale. Because al-Qaeda is not a nation-state to which we can apply the rules of war, then they must be people, and thus subject to criminal law processes. I remain impotent to illuminate the fallaciousness of such reasoning, but my ineptitude hardly alters the reality of the War on Islamic Fascism that has boiled around us for 30 years and to which we belatedly became engaged a mere seven years ago.
2.) Definitions. My definition of torture in war is not the same as that touted by the popular Press. IMHO, a good portion of the present debate regarding ‘torture’ stems from the misjudgment of 1.) above, as well as the added dimensions of instant anonymous communications that are so common in today’s World. The criminal is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and as a consequence, the accused retains all rights, benefits and privileges as a citizen or resident alien. Enemy soldiers, or in this peculiar state of ambiguity battlefield combatants, are by definition outside the jurisdiction of the United States. The Geneva Convention and other international protocols have attempted to establish some modicum of order to confrontations between nation-states, and thus their operatives. The difference in the current conflict is, we have an enemy who operates beyond all forms of order. The definition of torture we seem to favor in the present conflict appears to be driven by the confusion of 1.) above.
Now, that said . . .
In war, we are not interested in evidence, but rather intelligence to save other Allied lives. The captive intelligence collection process has several dependent variables – threat, time, risk, battlefield conditions, et cetera. Battlefield intelligence interrogation is most definitely not prosecutorial interrogation. Because of time, threat, and such, battlefield captives need an inducement to extract information. That inducement probably taints the information. Captive information rarely, if ever, stands on its own. However, as with all battlefield intelligence collection processes, corroboration and validation are essential to producing actionable information. If there is no inducement, there is no intelligence.

Another contribution:
“Below is a comment on the Boumediene case that perhaps clarifies things. Professor Epstein teaches at the U. of Chicago and is a senior fellow at Hoover, so he has pretty impeccable conservative credentials.”
“How to Complicate Habeas Corpus”
Op-Ed Contributor
by Richard A. Epstein
New York Times
Published: June 21, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/21/opinion/21epstein.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
My reply:
Sadly, we are into the parsing of words . . . “that depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.”
A writ of habeas corpus to test the classification as ‘enemy combatants’ will nearly, if not totally, have the same result, i.e., if they are not ‘enemy combatants,’ then they may be criminals. If not criminals, then they must be set free. I just finished reading the first of the post-Boumediene cases – Parhat v. Gates [DC CCA no. 06-1397 (2008)]. The process has begun.
The key word in your preamble to the Epstein article is ‘arrest.’ If any captive was indeed ‘arrested’ by law enforcement (subject to the rules of evidence), then yes, by all means, any such captives should have the right to test their detention by petition for writ of habeas corpus, as any accused criminal maintains. The difficulty in this instance is the very nature of the battlefield as dictated by our enemy. The circumstances of the capture of Boumediene and Parhat are indicative of the ambiguity of the current battlefield. Soldiers and intelligence operatives are not law enforcement and are certainly not trained, capable or charged with observing the rules of evidence and chain of custody requirements essential to the criminal justice process. I doubt any battlefield capture can withstand the scrutiny of proper judicial criminal review. The result . . . we shall indeed set ‘hardened terrorists’ and their supporters free.
I respect Epstein’s opinion regarding the law, but he clearly does not understand or appreciate the complicated ambiguity of contemporary warfare.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

Another contribution:
“I truly am concerned about Obama. I already know he will not be my choice. I just pray that God will be the deciding factor in our choice this year. IF Obama is not the man he proclaims to be, then I pray that more of the truth of that fact will come to light before that fateful election day. Politics is such a dirty business. All the cutthroats trying to get into power, without any real plans for helping this country. I understand that this is a first in this country, as far as an African-American being so close to being in the highest office we have in this country. But there have been too many actions and statements made by him and his wife, to believe that they are looking for what is best for this country. Just as he said, if things got messy, he would stand with the Muslim Nation. And for his ‘Christian’ influence to be dominated by the hate-mongering of Pastor Wright for 20 years, that just leads me to believe some of that had to infiltrate his system too. He is bi-racial, but he is only focusing on his black Muslim heritage. I have read that his mother was not a strong religious person, in fact, might have been considered an atheist, so in his formative years, his religious influence came from the Islam religion. With all our conflicts with the Moslems, I don't understand how we cannot have doubts about this man.
“This is the forward, but I cannot say that I will argue with it. I don't like all the language, but I guess he felt strongly enough to use it here.
“The following is just my opinion: If you don't like it, Tango Sierra, (military personnel will understand this), then delete this e-mail. But old Ron is pissed-off with the Dem. Party building up this non-patriotic, Black Muslim SOB. His wife is no better, she is only NOW proud of America, since her old man is now the front runner for the Dem. Party. Just study his background. I cannot figure out how he has so many people fooled. The following is from The Book of Revelations, the anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40s, of Muslim descent, who will deceive the nations with a persuasive language, and have a massive Christ-like appeal .... The prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything. Now who the hell does that sound like? And now he has designed his own Presidential Seal, and if, God forbid, he should win the election, will he be sworn in on the Muslim Koran instead of the Bible????? Think about this!!!!!!! Old Ron will shut up, I feel a little better now. ‘I approve of this message.’”
My response:
While I do have some concerns, I do not share your view or ‘Old Ron’s’ view of Barack Obama.
First, I think he is a far better man than many are giving him credit.
Second, the President of the United States is not a dictator, able to operate unilaterally. While the office wields enormous power, his decisions and intended direction will be subject to congressional, judicial and public review and scrutiny.
Third, whether he is a closet Muslim (which I truly believe he is not) is irrelevant. Allah is God by a different name. The Koran is a holy book, just as the Bible and Talmud are. Last time I checked, being an avowed and practicing Protestant Christian is not a prerequisite for performing the duties of President.
Fourth, Islam is a noble religion, just as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism are. This Grand Republic is far stronger than any single individual. I still believe we must separate church and state. Religion is a private matter. Politics is a public matter. And, the two should not be transposed.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)